New H.265 twice as efficient as H.264!

[img eL]

Originally Posted by vargo

I downloaded one of their samples and it was clearly encoded using x264.

Yeah they say there is no need to update with new hardware, that most current hardware will work. Will see how they do against HEVC/H.265 in a head to head

[vargo]

Originally Posted by img eL

Yeah they say there is no need to update with new hardware, that most current hardware will work. Will see how they do against HEVC/H.265 in a head to head

I think you missed the point.

[img eL]

Originally Posted by vargo

I think you missed the point.

What point? I think you did? Yeah there h.264 files that claim smaller file size like the new h.265. Did you download both sample files to compare? How did the Beamr h.264 files playback on your computer setup?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by img eL

A h.264 claiming 75% file size reduction http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/190832551.html

http://beamrvideo.com/

Looking forward to seeing, or at least hearing about anecdotal viewer responses at some upcoming trade shows in regards to a real world demo of their codec with 4K source on 4K tvs, rather than just a promotional video and press reports.

It would seem to me that the upcoming NAB in April would be a perfect venue for them to attempt to really prove that 75% claim for TV viewing.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Looking forward to seeing, or at least hearing about anecdotal viewer responses at some upcoming trade shows in regards to a real world demo of their codec with 4K source on 4K tvs, rather than just a promotional video and press reports.

"Their" codec is x264.

[img eL]

Originally Posted by vargo

"Their" codec is x264.

Why does it matter if its h.264 versus h.265?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by vargo

"Their" codec is x264.

I know.
Just quicker to type that, rather than *their patent-pending video recompression technology for H.264*.

Looking forward to a presentation at NAB.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by img eL

Why does it matter if its h.264 versus h.265?

Im not saying anything about H.264 vs H.265.

Im saying their 'magic compression technology' is simply the popular open source encoding library x264. They tried to hide it but it is very obvious to anyone who knows what to look for.

Im not sure how simpler I can put it for you. It would be like me advertising my amazing new Vargoshop photo editing suite and when you examine the code it is just Photoshop with the name changed.

[img eL]

Originally Posted by vargo

Im not saying anything about H.264 vs H.265.

Im saying their 'magic compression technology' is simply the popular open source encoding library x264. They tried to hide it but it is very obvious to anyone who knows what to look for.

Im not sure how simpler I can put it for you. It would be like me advertising my amazing new Vargoshop photo editing suite and when you examine the code it is just Photoshop with the name changed.

Yes Beamr mentions that, it's there optimized version of H.264. Not all h.264 is the same

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by img eL

Yes Beamr mentions...

lol, looks like every time I check into read this thread now, I’m thinking of the car…http://www.bmw.com/com/en/

[img eL]

HEVC demo http://www.diginfo.tv/v/13-0015-r-en.php

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by img eL

HEVC demo http://www.diginfo.tv/v/13-0015-r-en.php

For me, HEVC can’t come soon enough for video conferencing . Anyway, observe the stills of the waterfalls by EBU for comparing HEVC codec at 10 Mbps to uncompressed source…
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....ls#post7187037

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For me, HEVC can’t come soon enough for video conferencing

agree

[Penton-Man]

From Feb.22…
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....rs#post7186967

Four days later…
Company Release -
http://ir.rovicorp.com/file.aspx?IID...6&FID=16131783

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree

It certainly beats traveling and going through security these days.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by img eL

Yes Beamr mentions that, it's there optimized version of H.264. Not all h.264 is the same

The problem is that "their" so-called "optimized version" of H.264 is NOT THEIRS.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

Ripping off an open source (and free) library that encodes H.264 video and calling it yours is just unethical and sleazy. Even worse that they're going to try to patent it and make money from it. Disgusting.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

4k has FOUR times (2x horizontal, and 2x vertical pixels) the resolution as 1080, not double. So even if h.265 only needs half the bit rate as h.264 (and I've heard its more like 30% than 50) the disc needs to be twice the size, given the same length of content.

Part of quote bolded by me for emphasis. The bolded statement is not true. Why is this?

Because of P and B frames.

I frames are a current snapshot of what a given scene looks like.

After any I frame, you will have one or more P frames.

Each P frame uses data from previous frames (either I, P, or B frames) to construct the current image.

Between P and I frames, you may also have B frames.

Each B frame uses data from previous and future frames to attain high levels of compression.


Because of P and B frames, 4x the resolution does not linearly equate to 4x the bitrate required, simply because when you build on frames that already exist, that's data you get "for free" (at the expense of decoding time/power requirements).

[img eL]

Originally Posted by Taikero

The problem is that "their" so-called "optimized version" of H.264 is NOT THEIRS.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

Ripping off an open source (and free) library that encodes H.264 video and calling it yours is just unethical and sleazy. Even worse that they're going to try to patent it and make money from it. Disgusting.

That's not the point, I have no idea what they do as a business model. The point is that they claim they can reduce current h.264 file sizes by %70! We'll see if they can do that.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Taikero

Part of quote bolded by me for emphasis. The bolded statement is not true. Why is this?

Because of P and B frames.

I frames are a current snapshot of what a given scene looks like.

After any I frame, you will have one or more P frames.

Each P frame uses data from previous frames (either I, P, or B frames) to construct the current image.

Between P and I frames, you may also have B frames.

Each B frame uses data from previous and future frames to attain high levels of compression.


Because of P and B frames, 4x the resolution does not linearly equate to 4x the bitrate required, simply because when you build on frames that already exist, that's data you get "for free" (at the expense of decoding time/power requirements).

You are correct that an exact linear increase is probably inaccurate. But, there are still differences between each frame (unless its a static image), and an image that has 4x as many pixels, will, on average I think, have 4x as much difference between frames.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by img eL

That's not the point, I have no idea what they do as a business model. The point is that they claim they can reduce current h.264 file sizes by %70! We'll see if they can do that.

They probably can't because devices are locked into certain profiles. Profiles limit the features of the H.264 spec you can take advantage of due to processing limitations during decoding.

Because of this, unless they found some amazing way to tweak optimizations during profiling, their business model is simply "provide crappier H.264 video than our competitors".

Originally Posted by lobosrul

You are correct that an exact linear increase is probably inaccurate. But, there are still differences between each frame (unless its a static image), and an image that has 4x as many pixels, will, on average I think, have 4x as much difference between frames.

This is not true either. Due to the way differences are calculated and colors are approximated, more pixels means more opportunity to save data by approximating colors in a larger area of pixels that has changed. In other words, more pixels means less variation between each pixel as you advance frames (just like there's more change per pixel in a 640x480 video vs. a 1920x1080 video). This is even more true with B frames that borrow from previous and future frames.

I know it sounds crazy, but 4x more pixels might only have 2-3x the difference due to the lossy algorithms used to save video data, especially when dealing with scenes that have slow movement (fast movement scenes will of course see the most rapid change and be able to compress less, but that is always the case).